read_flow_prompt_stacks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the tool is 'Read-only' and specifies the output includes 'flowStepId, link ids, order'. With no annotations provided, the description adequately covers behavioral traits such as the idempotent nature and the structure of the response.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that first identifies the sibling relationship then explains the tool's function. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job clarifying the return structure (steps, prompt stacks, flowStepId, link ids, order). It references the sibling tool for context. However, it could mention that only a single flowId parameter is needed, which is already clear from the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers the single parameter flowId with a description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. As schema coverage is 100%, a score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'resolve a flow to its steps and their system/user prompt stacks'. It identifies the specific resource (flow prompt stacks) and distinguishes itself from the sibling read_workflow_prompt_stacks by calling itself 'the flow-scoped counterpart'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly frames the tool as the flow-scoped counterpart of read_workflow_prompt_stacks, which gives clear context for when to use this tool versus the workflow version. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or list other alternatives beyond this one sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.